How is she a “cop” if she was a prosecutor? They’re not even in the same branch of government. Police is executive branch, a prosecutor is judicial branch.
In most states attorney generals have arresting privileges and are the top cop in the state. They would be responsible for arresting sheriffs or even a governor for crimes.
Weird system. In most countries public prosecutors are firmly in the judicial branch, because they are expected to be impartial and independent from the executive branch.
Prosecutors are executive branch. Prosecutors are the ones that legally accuse people of committing crimes in court using evidence that the police obtain. They work in court but they are not arms of the court.
I’m not an expert on the American justice system, and I guess it shows, but in most countries prosecutors are magistrates who are part of the judiciary and who are independent from the executive branch. For example in my country it’s like this: https://www.advocaat.be/en/words/magistracy
IIRC, this comes from the Napoleonic Code which many countries used as a basis for their legal system.
The US system is based on English Common Law. (Except for Louisiana which actually has Napoleonic Law influence)
The Judiciary in the US is supposed to be impartial and apolitical. It is impossible to achieve full impartiality, but we have some rudimentary structures to make the system more impartial.
For the federal system the President heads the executive branch. The Attorney General (AG) heads the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the lower ranked prosecutors are internal to the Department of Justice.
The FBI and other law enforcement branches of the Federal government are also under the DoJ umbrella. They collect information on suspected crimes and give reports to the AG’s office. The AG’s office then files a criminal action against the suspected perpetrator in US District Court.
The suspect/ Defendant can hire an attorney to represent them or be appointed an attorney from the Federal Public Defender’s Office if they qualify. (Public defender’s are also under the executive branch.)
Judges (and the judicial branch) are more like referees who are there to make sure everyone follows procedure. In the US a jury must convict you unless you waive that right. So, the judge doesn’t even get a say in whether you are convicted unless something has seriously gone wrong. (JNOV/ directed verdict)
Kamala Harris was a States Attorney (District Attorney) in San Francisco in California and later the AG of California. California has a similar set up to the federal system, but replace the president with the governor of California. The State’s justice departments do not answer to the federal DoJ.
How is she a “cop” if she was a prosecutor? They’re not even in the same branch of government. Police is executive branch, a prosecutor is judicial branch.
In most states attorney generals have arresting privileges and are the top cop in the state. They would be responsible for arresting sheriffs or even a governor for crimes.
Weird system. In most countries public prosecutors are firmly in the judicial branch, because they are expected to be impartial and independent from the executive branch.
If you think the US is a country with reasonable policies you haven’t been paying attention.
It’s an elected position in most American states
Prosecutors are executive branch. Prosecutors are the ones that legally accuse people of committing crimes in court using evidence that the police obtain. They work in court but they are not arms of the court.
Vote for Harris anyway.
I’m not an expert on the American justice system, and I guess it shows, but in most countries prosecutors are magistrates who are part of the judiciary and who are independent from the executive branch. For example in my country it’s like this: https://www.advocaat.be/en/words/magistracy
IIRC, this comes from the Napoleonic Code which many countries used as a basis for their legal system.
The US system is based on English Common Law. (Except for Louisiana which actually has Napoleonic Law influence)
The Judiciary in the US is supposed to be impartial and apolitical. It is impossible to achieve full impartiality, but we have some rudimentary structures to make the system more impartial.
For the federal system the President heads the executive branch. The Attorney General (AG) heads the Department of Justice (DoJ) and the lower ranked prosecutors are internal to the Department of Justice.
The FBI and other law enforcement branches of the Federal government are also under the DoJ umbrella. They collect information on suspected crimes and give reports to the AG’s office. The AG’s office then files a criminal action against the suspected perpetrator in US District Court.
The suspect/ Defendant can hire an attorney to represent them or be appointed an attorney from the Federal Public Defender’s Office if they qualify. (Public defender’s are also under the executive branch.)
Judges (and the judicial branch) are more like referees who are there to make sure everyone follows procedure. In the US a jury must convict you unless you waive that right. So, the judge doesn’t even get a say in whether you are convicted unless something has seriously gone wrong. (JNOV/ directed verdict)
Kamala Harris was a States Attorney (District Attorney) in San Francisco in California and later the AG of California. California has a similar set up to the federal system, but replace the president with the governor of California. The State’s justice departments do not answer to the federal DoJ.
Thanks for the neatly summarized overview.